On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 08:29:02 -0800, "Steve" wrote:

Of the four boats you have listed, IMFO, the Pacific Seacraft, then the
Tayana.

The only one I've seen regularly up here is the Pacific Seacraft: I've
been aboard both the 34 and the 37 and I must say that I'm impressed,
mainly with a lot of the "little things" most production builders seem
to have forgotten. Also, Practical Sailor had a great article on the
37 last year that made me want to get one.

R.

Bingo!! Cindy & Paul.. That just jogged my feible memory..

It was Nordhaven trawler.. Although I wouldn't have ever remember the
name..

I was up in Mystery Bay WA last summer and there was a beautiful large
trawler there at the dock for a couple days.. I struck up a conversation
with the owner.. He told me that it was Built by Pac. Seacraft and was hull
#1 and that all subsequent hulls were built in Tiawan..

I'm sure this trawler was larger than 40 ft.. Maybe 60 ft and now that I
think more about it, I think it was a limited production boat..

I also remember that it had a big John Deere diesel, bow thruster, etc. Nice
boat..

Sorry if I created some concern with all the devoted Pac. Seacraft owners. I
have always known that they build very fine boats..

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

Bingo!! Cindy & Paul.. That just jogged my feible memory..

It was Nordhaven trawler.. Although I wouldn't have ever remember the
name..

I was up in Mystery Bay WA last summer and there was a beautiful large
trawler there at the dock for a couple days.. I struck up a conversation
with the owner.. He told me that it was Built by Pac. Seacraft and was hull
#1 and that all subsequent hulls were built in Tiawan..

I'm sure this trawler was larger than 40 ft.. Maybe 60 ft and now that I
think more about it, I think it was a limited production boat..

I also remember that it had a big John Deere diesel, bow thruster, etc. Nice
boat..

Sorry if I created some concern with all the devoted Pac. Seacraft owners. I
have always known that they build very fine boats..

Steve
s/v Good Intentions

I do not know which Taiwanese boats were good and which of the majority were
not. (A friend of mine with serious, close hand experience going back to the
60's can rattle them off between sips of coffee). But I believe that Baba and
Tayana were two of the good ones.


The 'metallurgy' on taiwanese boats leaves very much to be desired.
Much of the 'bronze' is actually red brass. The majority of red metal
castings are outstandlingly porous (gas inclusions). A lot of the
stainless is very poor grade - with lots of vulnerability to fatigue
failure, etc. in stress loaded components.

This is typical to most asian supply metals ----- just like the
imported hardware CRAP that is widescale offered today in the USA . Im
quite sure that if one did a detailed chemical analysis of these
metals, one would find residue of .... cat, floor sweepings, etc.

Many taiwanese boat yards use(d) rigging from 'local' suppliers and
many of the normally forged rigging fittings are actually very
cleverly machined / screwed-together 'contraptions' that are
extremely subject to crevice corrosion failu "Grand Deer" components
as an example.

I do not know which Taiwanese boats were good and which of the majority were
not. (A friend of mine with serious, close hand experience going back to the
60's can rattle them off between sips of coffee). But I believe that Baba and
Tayana were two of the good ones.


The 'metallurgy' on taiwanese boats leaves very much to be desired.
Much of the 'bronze' is actually red brass. The majority of red metal
castings are outstandlingly porous (gas inclusions). A lot of the
stainless is very poor grade - with lots of vulnerability to fatigue
failure, etc. in stress loaded components.

This is typical to most asian supply metals ----- just like the
imported hardware CRAP that is widescale offered today in the USA . Im
quite sure that if one did a detailed chemical analysis of these
metals, one would find residue of .... cat, floor sweepings, etc.

Many taiwanese boat yards use(d) rigging from 'local' suppliers and
many of the normally forged rigging fittings are actually very
cleverly machined / screwed-together 'contraptions' that are
extremely subject to crevice corrosion failu "Grand Deer" components
as an example.

It seems like the design would simply *have* to be easier in a following
sea.

Absolutely NO and a little bit yes !

Consider that there is LESS reserve bouyancy in a pinched stern. So,
in a steep following sea the sharp stern will initially penetrate into
the following wave as the wave advances ..... in contrast to the
fat-ass boat that lifts more/faster initially (and by reaction puts her
bow deeper into the trough).

---------------------

Supposedly, more Perry double-ended designs (mostly Tayanas and
Valiants) have circumnavigated than any other 'production' built /
designed sailboat. Thats pretty good 'testimonial' on a stern design
thats based primarily on Bob Perry's asthetic/styling whims. As I
stated on another post, Perry will flatly state that his tumblehome
canoe stern is totally design 'style' ...... His canoe stern designs
in comparsion to other 'double-enders' have more (although limited)
reserve buoyancy incorporated into his 'bustle' at the waterline.
There is a very big difference in the shape of Perry's canoe sterns and
other designers 'double enders'.

IMHO Where a pinched stern has advantage is when forced onto an extreme
heel. Then, the symmetry of the double-ender hull form can heel at
great angles ***without affecting change in weather/lee helm
balance***. Like an inland lake scow, you can sail a Perry design
'double-ender' over onto its beam ends and have very little change in
helm balance. Also note that the max. beam in such Perry designs is
carried quite full for the majority of the hull plan; hence, the less
than 'ideal' windward performance. .... always a trade-off.

It seems like the design would simply *have* to be easier in a following
sea.

Absolutely NO and a little bit yes !

Consider that there is LESS reserve bouyancy in a pinched stern. So,
in a steep following sea the sharp stern will initially penetrate into
the following wave as the wave advances ..... in contrast to the
fat-ass boat that lifts more/faster initially (and by reaction puts her
bow deeper into the trough).

---------------------

Supposedly, more Perry double-ended designs (mostly Tayanas and
Valiants) have circumnavigated than any other 'production' built /
designed sailboat. Thats pretty good 'testimonial' on a stern design
thats based primarily on Bob Perry's asthetic/styling whims. As I
stated on another post, Perry will flatly state that his tumblehome
canoe stern is totally design 'style' ...... His canoe stern designs
in comparsion to other 'double-enders' have more (although limited)
reserve buoyancy incorporated into his 'bustle' at the waterline.
There is a very big difference in the shape of Perry's canoe sterns and
other designers 'double enders'.

IMHO Where a pinched stern has advantage is when forced onto an extreme
heel. Then, the symmetry of the double-ender hull form can heel at
great angles ***without affecting change in weather/lee helm
balance***. Like an inland lake scow, you can sail a Perry design
'double-ender' over onto its beam ends and have very little change in
helm balance. Also note that the max. beam in such Perry designs is
carried quite full for the majority of the hull plan; hence, the less
than 'ideal' windward performance. .... always a trade-off.

Yup
Tayana (TaYang) and Ta Shing) were and remain the 'good' ones as Perry
was deeply involved with both.
Many of the others simply stole the designs, didnt know the true intent
nor the implication of the intricate details .... and not much about
boat building, etc. Same thing going on now with semiconductors,
machine tools, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Yup
Tayana (TaYang) and Ta Shing) were and remain the 'good' ones as Perry
was deeply involved with both.
Many of the others simply stole the designs, didnt know the true intent
nor the implication of the intricate details .... and not much about
boat building, etc. Same thing going on now with semiconductors,
machine tools, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:29:31 -0600, "Wendy"
wrote:


"Armond Perretta" wrote in message
...
However depending on boat size, having a canoe stern gives up a few
positive
aspects of transom stern boats without necessarily offering compensation.
I
want to suggest (at the risk of drawing ire) that there has never been any
real evidence that these designs are any better or worse than transom
boats
in rough going. We hear things about "parting breaking waves and seas"
and
so on, but I don't believe there is any quantifiable evidence that
double-enders do any better than any other designs. Not that they do any
worse either, but there's a suggestion of superiority out there that is
not
supported by any real evidence.

It seems like the design would simply *have* to be easier in a following
sea. I spent a lot of time running these boats
http://www.boatshow.com/POWER/CustomDivePro42.html which are rudderless
jets, and they were horrid in a following sea. But I admit that comparing a
300hp non-displacement hull to a 35-40 sailboat is an apples-and-oranges
thing. My experiences may well be a hindrance here... I am not committed
to a double-ender.

Wendy, you are indeed extrapolating from something unrelated.
Remember, essentially all keel sailboats are doubelenders at and below
the waterline. The visible "canoe stern" loses a great deal of aft
buoyancy in a following sea.

I suggest that buying a long-distance cruiser is premature. Until,
that is, you have tried different kinds of boats to find out what you
enjoy sailing.



Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the
simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.
- Richard Dawkins, "Viruses of the Mind"